I have arabs, jews, catholics, and evangelical christians in my immediate family.

The jews nees to set the palestinians free. They need to close down all of the settlements as they did in Gaza - and I mean ALL of them.

The Palestinians need to reject hate and killing. This will require they stand down from their outsized arab pride, accept that their era of greatness came and went and can only be recliamed through peace, science, and social moderation... and admit that mistakes and murders of innocents were made... and killing of any kind is unholy.

PERIOD.

When the palestinians are free of murderous Islamists they will be free of oppression...the jews will no longer be hypocrites-of-the-holocost and peace can be discussed in the wider middle east.

I am a voting American Jew.

As a kid I had always wanted to see Paris. At the age of 26 I went, fulfilling a dream. The Palestinians have no passports and few dreams, and can never leave to explore the world.
Jimmy Carter is correct in his use of "apartheid." And don't forget, he is an honorable man.

Apartheid is not what is going on in Israel my friends. Israel has it's warts, every functioning democracy has them. But the last time I looked, Israel is the only country in the region that let's everyone vote and run for office. The Knesset has non-Jewish, Muslim members who contribute to the political debate in Israel. Tell me what other country in the region has any Jews left, let alone encourages them to be a part of the political process.

The Palestinians have walked away from every substantive peace deal, from the partition plan in '47 through Camp David. They have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

When the Israeli's pulled out of Gaza and the Palestinians were left to run it, they promptly voted for the most radical group to represent them. How should Israel react when it's "Partner in Peace" is Hammas, a group that routinely fires rockets at civilians and has steadfastly refused Israel's existential rights. Clearly, the current Palestinian street does not want peace.

There will be peace in the region when Palestinians decide to love their kids and their future more than they hate Jews and Israeli's.

Israel would like nothing more than to divert some of the billions of $$$ of defense money to other more peaceful needs.

The fact that you characterize President Carter as the "most prominent pro-Palestinian public figure in America" is rather telling. It displays just how skewed the conversation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in this country. Mr. Carter's views on the conflict are not "pro-Palestinian", but merely balanced. When one avoids the usual dogma that laces American public discourse on this subject-matter and simply recognizes that BOTH Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate arguments, then one has acheived a degree of objectivity that is sorely lacking in our foreign policy. It's a shame that someone of Mr. Carter's stature and sincerity is being criticized (or characterized) as being biased when it is precisely "bias" that Mr. Carter is singularly trying to avoid.

Would it be so difficult for Israel to comply with UN Resolutions 242 and 338 to withdraw from territories it had taken and occupied in the fighting including the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 and 1973 wars? Wouldn't it be a positive gesture for Israel to compensate the Palestinians who lost property as a result of partition?
I hope there will come a day when Israel and its supporters can accept critizism and respond with logical discussion without constantly using platitudes such as "Jew haters, antisemites, racists and they just don't like us" I support what Carter refers to his "bottom line" about Israel. On the other hand, I still dislike the fact that he gave away the Panama Canal.

Jimmy Carter is argualbly the most incompetant man ever to hold the presidency. When he was in office I was living in the middle east. After the Iranian hostage situation began and the failed attempt at freeing them the Arabs and Jews I met finally had found one thing they could agree on. That was the fact that Jimmy Carter was not fit to hold his office.
Never before or since has the US been help in such contempt in the region. Why anyone would consider Carter's views on the middle east to be valid remains a total mystery to me as the man is an idiot who has made it quite plain that like most hillbillys he simply doesn't like Jews.

I find it laughable that anyone lisens to a total failure of a president who was booted from office in disgrace by a landslide. I think given the wars launched against Israel (3) and the digusting savagery it faces from arab terrorists daily, they have behaved reasonably. I can just imagine what we americans would scream for if we suffered all that violence from Mexico across our border. All the anti semites seem to forget that Israel is alonely democracy in a sea of arab dictatorships.

On this issue US foreign policy is held too captive to US domestic political considerations

Jimmy Carter's book demonstrates very clearly The Big Lie frequently reflected in the views of anti-Israel voices -- specifically, the lie that "Palestine" is only the territory west of the Jordan River, and that is the territory that must be "shared." In fact, 75% of Mandatory Palestine is east of the Jordan River, where there is, and has for many decades, been a Palestinian state, albeit with a non-Palestinian ruler, courtesy of British colonial rule. Don't believe me? See David Fromkin's, "A Peace to End All Peace," Chapter 57, Section VIII, pg. 514: "The recurring suggestion that Palestine be partitioned between Arabs and Jews ran up against the problem that 75 percent of the country had already been given to an Arab dynasty that was not Palestinian." Thus, while Jews make-up approximately 35% of the population of Mandatory Palestine, Israel as defined by the 1949 armistice lines (the so-called "1967 border") represents only 12% of Palestine, while the Arabs, who comprise 65% of the population, already have one state on 75% of the land, and now want half of the remaining 25%. That is, the so-called "moderate" Arab regimes who are willing to let Israel to exist at all. The second Big Lie Carter tells is the notion that the "1967 border" is the "internationally recognized" border. In fact, not a single country in the world ever recognized the 1949 armistace lines as a "border." The third "Big Lie" Carter tells is his continual abuse of the phrase "international law" to justify his anti-Jewish bigotry. Israel has done nothing but exercise its legitimate right of self-defense while surrounded by states who want to exterminate it. International law does not require the Jews of the world to go back to having a knife at their throats.

In response to GS: It is true that non-Jews can vote in Israeli elections, if they live in Israel. President Carter's book is explicitly about the Palestinian territories, where people are deprived of the most elementary of human dignities, including and especially self-government.

Mike's post is almost beneath contempt, except to point out that a) this is exactly the sort of rhetoric that limits reasonable debate on this topic, and b) perhaps Carter's handling of American interests in the Middle East does not seem so bad compared to where we are now.

Jimmy Carter spoke like the man I always thought he was, a true man of his conscience. I was in the military when he was president and not one moment did I have to think that he would get us into a stupid war like our current president. Israel does have policies that mirror those of the old South African government and until those policies change there will never be peace for Israel.

What is so outrageous about the term "apartheid"? What is the purpose of Israel's fence?

I see several people taking potshots at Carter but not dealing with his argument. What is their solution? Endless conflict?

It is interesting how Former President Jimmy Carter, who is also a minister, can be branded an antisemite and a "JEW HATER" just because he is an outspoken critic of destructive Israeli policies. As the man who negotiated the 1979 Gaza peace treaty between the Israelis and the Egyptians, he brought the Middle East region FAR closer to peace than ANY of his critics EVER did! And as one who has several friends who incidentally happen to be jews, does their being friends with ME make them self-hating jews if they happen to also harbor feelings of anger towards Israeli policy?

It is quite easy to see why Jimmy Carter was a failed President after listening to some of his typically asinine comments on the arab israeli conflict.

Jimmy Carter has been a long time apologist for Palestinian terrorism and it is a disgrace that his views are accorded even a shred of respect on this subject.

It is very interesting that many of the people that Jefferson cites in support of Carter (Lena Khaled Tuffaha, Sherry Muzher) are blatantly anti-semitic and a perusal of articles they have written will clearly illustrate that. Citing ant-semitic garbage like this Jefferson is why so many pewople regard you palestinian sympathizer!

Honestly, can anyone criticize the Israeli government or even suggest that it is not acting in its own self-interest without being labeled an anti-semite? I happen to be a professional historian of the Holocaust, and I know what anti-semitism is, and this ain't it.

I am surprised we have not heard from that dumbass OD, this idiotic discussion is right up his demented alley. Chime in OD I need a good laugh from your customary stupidity.

To Mike and Patrick...Perhaps you don't recall a little incident known as IRAN-CONTRA. So in your mind, were Reagan and his administration heroes because they made a deal to hold on to the hostages until AFTER the election in order to make Carter look incompetant. How evil is that? It it very convenient to have debates when you are not confined by the rules of logic, reality, or honesty. To AMC let me ask a simple question. Why can't you talk about UN Resolutions 242 and 338?? Aside from the vacuous statistics you threw out there, the language of those resolutions is quite clear. Give back the land Israel illegally acquired. It doesn't take a satistician to figure that out.

I read "Exodus" at 14 and was suitably impressed. When I first began forming my political opinions I was committed to supporting Israel.

The intervening years have modified my opinions somewhat.

Conversations with a few Israelis suggest to me that they are deeply troubled by feelings of insecurity; they haven't really overcome the 1950s-60s mindset that at any moment the surrounding Arab nations may invade again and attempt to push them into the sea. The changes in the balance of forces, and the alliance with the US haven't been enough to alleviate their insecurity. Hence, they tend to over-react, which only feeds the Palestinian opposition including the terrorists and suicide bombers.

On the other hand, there is another important reality which Israel's supporters ignored: Europe's solution to the Jewish question was to support their voluntary exile to Palestine. Over a thousand years, the Europeans never fully accommodated to the Jews living among them, and too frequently abused, murdered, and raped them. It was certainly convenient for them to assuage their guilt by supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine. So Israel became the last European colony, established in a land largely occupied by another Semitic people, the Arabs.

The Arabs were understandably trying to escape the yoke of European domination, and opposed giving political control over Arab territory to a bunch of recent immigrants.

Sixty years later, many of the Arab nations and states around Israel have reconciled themselves to the status quo. It is not surprising that a significant number have not.

But then, of course the Jewish diaspora occured because there were a significant number of Jews who never reconciled to Roman rule and resorted to acts of violence, leading to the sack of Jerusalem.

Until the two Semitic nations inhabiting the region of Palestine learn to recognize each other as brothers, the fight will never end.

Jimmy Carter is arguably the worst US president (and easily worst ex-president) in the last 100 or so years. To figure out his rationale for writing it, one only needs to recognize that the former president considered Arafat a personal friend. They had, for reasons that escape me, some sort of bond between them. The use of the word "apartheid" in the book title is technically wrong - as has been pointed out by Jimmy Carter himself in the book. But Carter seems to go out of his way over the years praising all sorts of brutal dictators and terrorists (including but not limited to Hammas, Castro, Arafat, Yugoslavia's Tito, Romainia's Ceausescu, Haiti's Cédras, Kim Il Sung, and Nicaragua's Ortega). People need to realize that getting on the list of people that Carter praises is not a good thing. He is old and senile and needs to give up his delusion that he is still president and stop meddling in world affairs.

Let's be frank. Any criticism of Israeli policies is immediately shouted down as coming from Jew haters, anti-semite, pro-palestinians, etc. This is so unfortunate. It's analagous to the homosexual lobby and its agenda in the U.S. You criticise their actions and you are immediately branded as a hater, anti homosexual, etc. Too bad supposedly enlightened and informed people can't have a debate and agree to disagree without being disagreeable and taking personal potshots at the messenger as opposed to addressing the message. Regarding the former President. I would give anything to have had him in the White house over the last six years as the quagmire in Iraq, I submit would not be realized.

BW, the iranians made the deal to hold them because they held CARTER in complete contempt and wanted to humiliate him as much as possible. His bumbling incompetent presidency was the worst of the 20th century. Too bad the liberal media ignores his crappy presidency and its incompetence as they look to resurrect his image.

Adrian
You are right - there is plenty of criticism to go around in the Middle East (around the world for that matter). Neither side should be building glass houses. It's unfortunate that some can't discuss the various positions without the personal potshots. That said, the position taken in the book and specifically the title of it is, I believe, intentional, done to inflame and incite passions of Israelis and their supporters (and get publicity). It's a rather low brow approach, not becomming of a former president. The reaction to it, while unfortunate, is to be expected. Hopefully this blog can get past it and be a forum for intellectual discussion and debate.

A thousand cheers for Mr. Jimmy Carter for being man enough to "call a spade a spade" in his analogy regarding Israel and South Africa; our congress needs more men who aren't only not afraid to speak their opinions honestly, but that also are human and compassionate enough to even be bothered. I never believed in going along with persecution or in being silent just because of how everyone around me is behaving. Mr. Bush and company need to get a clue from Mr. Carter and consider that his administration has been demonstrating a very one-sided and almost bigoted perspective on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to The American People. I already know about how my forefathers were treated (I an African-American); is the problem based in skin color??? I wouldn't be suprised.

Sorry Ray, not everything boils down to the race card. Do you even read the news?

it seems impossible to have an intelligent conversation about Isreal in this country. Few are willing to risk the anti-semite or self hating Jew labels. The pro Isreal lobby has terrorized the politicians and the media into silence. Jimmy Carter is a man of substance. How sad. His positions simply echo the positions of many Isrealis in the Labor, Meretz and other leftist parties. If only Dave and his cohort would read Isreali newspapers, they might stop spouting their vicious nonsense. They are on the web. Haaretz is even in English, for those who speak no other language.

Once again this comment forum is full of "Israel Boosters" whose day job is to flood comment forums like this en mass throwing predictable and absurd tantrums;some of them in some forums are rather nonsensical-- indicating computer generation. Israelis have killed Arabs by a ratio to 10:1. Israel's IDF IS THE state sponsored terrorist organization that does not recognize international rules or concensus. Israel is NOT in any sense in a struggle for its survival, but rather in a struggle for JUSTIFICATION of its regional hegemony. Its military is categorically unmatched in the region, and it is the ONLY nuclear nation in the region possessing an estimated 250 to 300 nuclear warheads. Germany has recently sold them 5 more diesel submarines capable of delivering the warhead to places like Iran. No wonder the Iranian hardliners want nukes of their own. Wouldn't any country under that circumstance? America and Soviet Union comes to mind. Israel is singularly responsible for the Iranian nuclear catch up arms race, and as always, the rest of the world has to pay for its consequences.

I have not read the book "Palestine; Peace, not Apartheid" yet, but I did see all three hours of the CSPAN show "INDEPTH" this past Sunday where Carter was interviewed at length about his books, the focus mostly on his newest. He did stress that the book is NOT ABOUT ISRAEL, but as its title states, ONLY about conditions in Palestine, though I DO think Israel is insidiously(has a veneer of democracy) more racist than South Africa ever was;it denies Israeli citizenship to Palestinian spouses of Israelis--which South Africa has never done to my knowledge; it also imports massive numbers of "Jews" of questionable heritage from all corners of the earth, but will not let Palestinians return to their familial lands in Israel-- all this to fufill the goal of racial hegemony--Israel for Jews. This rather destroys the myth of Israel being "democratic". Calling Carter a "Jew hater" or a person who does not like Israel or Israelis (which only seems to happen in the U.S. "inexplicably")by people like Marty Peretz and Allan Dershowitz, who once said that he could defend Hitler and he would win(denoting his outsized ego or his tolerance to Holocaust?), is not saying much AT ALL. I personally do not like current Israel and hardline Israelis for the things they are doing to their neighbors(or "enemies" in hardline Israeli speak), and I do intensely dislike Jews who knowingly support a country that second time since 1982 has used cluster bombs in Lebanon against civilians -- a war crime when collateral damage to civilians far outweighs the military objective. Asked why they bombed a large power plant in Beirut, the capital, IDF dead-panned, "Hezbollah uses electricity." IDF has openly boasted that they have set back Lebanon, a nation with democratically elected government friendly to the West, 20 hears, and they certainly have. Israeli war planes dumped thousands of cluster bombs in the last 72 hours of the cease fire as it became inevitable, and has left 350,000(Le Monde, Haaretz,UN Humanitarian Coordinator) to 1 million(Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) of unexploded bomblets each 155mm in diameter all over Lebanon in people's backyards, rooftops, fruit orchards, alley ways. It has been killing an average of 3 people a day and maiming many more, many of them predictably children playing outside, since the war has "ended". The rainy season since then has hidden these bombs in the mud, turning them into land mines, ensuring the killing and maiming will continue years hence(Le Monde, Christan Science Monitor) . All this predictable carnage(this war was apparently planned many months ahead of time)
over one kidnapped IDF SOLDIER captured(still alive) in Lebanon for the purpose of prisoner exchange. This may provide private glee to "Goeringian" orthodox Jewish hardliners in the Knesset, but it just sickens my stomach as a non-Jew and a non-muslim/Arab, non-Lebanese, as well as for the 2,850 and counting dead American soldiers in Iraq--the war planned by the high command in Jerusalem and aggressively and relentlessly promoted by AIPAC(American Israel Public Affairs Committee), one of the two most powerful lobby in the U.S. along with AARP(The Israel Lobby,Walt/Mearsheimer 2006). The open "mystery" that Carter(he is an experienced politician after all) mentioned as to why no American media outlets will discuss the plight of the Palestinians is mostly a testament to the COMPLETE LACK of integrity of the American media, cowered by the powerful influence of AIPAC(in American foreign policy) and other Israel boosters in media. I will acknowlege Washington Post for a column by Richard Cohen in July 18, 2006 "Hunker Down with History" in which he said "The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now" No, I do not think Israel should be dragged into the Red Sea. Apparently even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no problems with indigenous Jews who has lived peacefully throughout the millenia with Arabs. But Israel MUST begin to act like a good neighbor and return the occupied lands it has taken from EVERY SINGLE ONE of it neighbors,(Lebanon--Shebaa Farms, Syria--Golan Heights, Palestine-- well, you see the pattern) and "hunker down with history" and hope that Arabs will forgive them eventually for the "honest mistake".

The ISG, which I gather can neither be collectively accused of personal incompetence, nor collectively accused of holding some sort of Bias against Israel, much less ridiculus, tired, worn out, thread bare, flea bitten, utterly baseless accusations of anti semitism, has come to pretty much exactly the same conclusion that Jimmy Carter has; that there will never be an end to the war on terrorism or even any decent conclusion to the War in Iraq until Israel is forced to quit the occupation and remove the remaining settlements. This is critical to gaining the support and the renewed perception of integrity that the US needs to gain the support of the other nations in the region who are central to curbing terrorism and unrest.

It is not that this is a novel idea on the part of Mr Carter or the ISG. Recently the UN voted 147 to seven to demand that Isreal remove the settlemts and end the occupation, as they have done on numerous occasions in the past. the 7 countries that were opposed were Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and the United States.

That is to say, virtually the majority of the rest of the world agrees with Mr. Carter and the ISG. So does Tony Blair. So do Walt (Dean of the Kennedy school at Harvard)and Mearsheimer. So does Colin Powell. In fact, Keep in mind that when 147 countries agree and 10 abstain at the UN, it means that virtually every single other ally we have in the world, in the middle east and everywhere else, want the settlements gone.

So rip on Mr Carter all you like. That's why he titled his book that way. He looks forward to having all the lame rhetoric that has proped up the morally bankrupt settlements for all these years exposed for what it is; rubbish.

But please, while your at it, start a list of all the people who agree with him (ie the majority of the planet) and try to marginalize all of them as well. But please be thourough and start alphabetically. It's a long list!!

J

The problem with us Americans is that we do not like to face the truth until it is very very late. Anybody who saw the events leading to the Iraq war and the consequences that followed would see what I mean about this. Many of us have been deceived by our elected leaders and the media that issues like the Palestinian cause is seen from a narrow perspective. For me, the reason why Hillary Clinton will not get my vote if the Democratic Party nominated her to contest for the presidency is because prior to her switching to New York,the hotbed of Jewish voters, to seek the Senatorial seat there, she saw the plight of the Palestinians as something to be empathized with. But since her first election and up until now, that is not even in her radar. So rather than voting for her, I will write in Bill Clinton or George Herbert Bush. I will also not consider McCain if the Republicans elected him as their flagbearer simply because of his unflinching support for GW Bush so that he can court the Christian Conservatives.
Back to the Carter's thesis in the new book. By the way, I already bought the book. President Carter is an honest and courageous man who won Nobel Peace prize for all his good works since he was out of office. He sees injustice stark naked and tells it as it should be told regardless of whose temper is aroused. Then you get people like Pelosi saying that is not the position of the Democratic Party. Who cares what she says about the position of the Party? This is a person who did not even recognize the mood of her colleagues in the House after the last elections when she publicly shopped her support for erratic Murtha against dignified Hoyer for the Majority Leader position. Falsehood may traverse for a thousand years, one day truth will catch up with it. If you doubt this, just ask people like GW Bush about his lies about Iraq. It did not even take 2 years for the lies he told to be exposed.

THE CARTER CENTER'S FIRST EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FOUNDER OF ITS MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM, a respected scholar, has resigned and accused Carter of prevaricating and fabrication in his book.

Here is the letter in full:

-------------------------------------------

Hi--

This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop.

My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.

Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally. President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OP/ED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.

In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.

As ever,

Ken

------------------------------------------

News of this resignation has been all over the blogs. TNR and The Atlanta Journal Constitution both printed it.

It needs to part of the debate.

This letter by a now ex-one-time-executive director of the Carter Center sounds like an attempt to cover one's professional arse. "My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand."

I am personally glad that he is gone from the Carter Center seeing how EVERY university, think tank (once respected Brookings Institute's Saban Center) has been robbed of its objectivity by centers created and funded to represent only Israel-centric view point.

"This letter by a now ex-one-time-executive director of the Carter Center sounds like an attempt to cover one's professional arse."

Jacob, he didn't write the book, and Carter said that he was the greatest teacher of the Middle East the Center ever had. He was one of the founders who hadn't been active for a long time.

So, there's no substance to your point that he quit to save face.

Anyway, this news is over seven hours old and was printed in detail in the Atlanta Journal constitution, a publication referenced on this blog.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2006/12/06/1206natcarter.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13

Also, if you type in "Carter" on Google News or Yahoo News, it's the first thing that comes up.

I don't see how Jefferson could have missed it.

A couple of questions for that neither Carter or the Pro `Palestinians' on this board will EVER answer:

1) If the 800,000+ Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world can't go home or recieve compensation for their lost homes, why should the `Palestinians' be entitled to claims or a right of return from Israel?

2) Why all the hatred and calls for concessions for Israel, the only country that has ever given the Palestinians so much as a square dunam of land to call their own, and no hatred for countries like
Iraq, Jordan, and Kuwait, all of whom have killed/driven out more Palestinians than Israel ever did since 1948? Couldn't be because there are Jews in Israel, now could it?

3) If Israel is `an apartheid state' why are there Arab MK's, policemen, businesspeople, teachers journalists, even IDF members? Why are the Arabs allowed to vote, own property and have full equality under the law?

4)If Israel `ethnically cleansed the Arabs'
in 1948 , why did they leave over 100,000 of them in Israel...as opposed to the Arabs, who killed or drove out every Jew they could find in the areas they ended up controlling?

5) Which state is more racially diverse, israel or it's Arab neighbors? Any place else in the Middle East that Arabs and Jews live in relative equality in the region?

- (It's called jealousy, envy and hatred...just to clue you in)

In my lifetime, the Israeli (Jew) has turned on nearly every nation or institution that nurtured or at worst tolerated them. My list-

Germany, Russia, The United Nations, the Democratic Party, Britain, Argentina, Iraq. Is the US next?

The Iraq Panel has suggested that Palestinian Right of Return should be accepted by Israel and already the Israelis are outraged. But don't you remember the silly claims that, "Arafat was offered everything Palestinians wanted (including Right of Return) but still he refused", so giving up RoR should not be a problem for Israelis now.

Monte Haun

Been following this story for a few days. (Wonder when the NY Times is going to say something.) Question to think about- Israel is constantly referred to as an ally of the US. Does the US have a formal defense treaty with Israel? Do Israel and the US have any formal, senate ratified agreements? The senate regularly approves foreign aid and military sales to Israel but as far as I know there is nothing in the way of a formal agreement where Israel and the US commit anything to each other. I think Israel would feel a lot more secure if the US made a formal defense commitment, but that would probably mean that the "disputed territories" question would first have to be resolved.

Martin:

Not sure what your point is.

Monte:

Your nasty statement about Jews doesn't add anything to the discussion.

The topic here is Carter's book and the assertions within.

I posted a link to the scholar who founded Carter's middle east institute. Said scholar accused Carter of fabrication.

Noone, including Carter himself, has offered a substantive rebutle.

Perhaps you can...

I read some excerpts from the book. It seems like half the book is Carter trying to brag/defend his "legacy" and make himself look like the savior of the Jewish people or something like that. The other half is blame/hatred of Israeli people and Isreal. But what else would you expect from a self-righteous tool like Carter?

This should help clear up any confusion regarding the critcism Mr. Carter has recieved from someone who has not been actively involved in the Carter Center for more than 12 years and whom Carter has had disagreements with on a regular Basis.

It simply goes to show that Carter is not afraid to dialog with those who don't necessarily share his exact views. To suggest that this is some real blow to Carters credibility rather than part of a concerted attack by the Israel Lobby, is ridiculus.

I wonder what Mr. Stein thinks about the major thesis of the book, that the settlements should be turned over to the Palestinians and the occupation ended. He did not seem to refer to that at all, but rather, he used the Lobbys favorite tactic, to argue about every minor detail in the room in a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the 800 pound gorilla sitting right in the middle of it.

Predictable, Tired, Thread bare, baseless and shameless accusations of anti semitism and/or incompetence. The Lobby M.O.

I wonder how they will try to apply this tired tactic to the entire Iraq Study Group, who have essentially come to the exact same conclusion as Mr. Carter.

Heres the article:

"Carter released a statement saying that Stein had not been actively involved with the center for more than 12 years and that he regretted Stein's resignation. Carter said Stein was not involved with his new book.

"If Ken has read my latest book he knows that, as the book's title makes clear, 'Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid' is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status," Carter said in the statement.

The former president praised Stein as "one of the finest teachers I have ever known," a Middle East adviser and a friend.

"I thank him for this, and wish him well," Carter's letter said.

It's not the first time Carter and Stein have disagreed over Middle East policy, said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Tulane University and the author of the 1988 Carter biography, "The Unfinished Presidency."

"They've never been on the same page in the Middle East. They've been in an almost constant state of disagreement. Carter has used him as a sounding board but apparently Carter went too far and the sparring partner decided to bloody him up," Brinkley said. "Ken Stein ... doesn't trust the Palestinians as much as Carter."

Brinkley said he has read Carter's new book but could not address Stein's accusations.

"It's packaged with previous Carter writings and ideas coralled together and presented as new. Some of the things in the book Carter has been saying for a long time," he said."

J

"Carters credibility rather than part of a concerted attack by the Israel Lobby, is ridiculous."

J, tThere is no evidence that Stein is part of a concerted attack by a so-called Lobby.

In the letter, Stein said that he hadn't been active in the center and he had nothing to do with the book. Carter was just reiterating those facts. He did not offer a substantive rebutle to any of Stein's accusations, specifically where Stein accused Carter of making up conversations that never happened - conversations Stein attended.

Being that Stein was one of the founders of the Carter Center,and that Carter had nothing but good things to say about his scholarship, AND that Stein traveled to the middle east more than once with Carter, your assertion that he's part of a Lobby seems strange. Why would Carter attend his lectures and laud his scholarship if he was simply a member of some lobby? I confess I don't understand your logic.

Stein has written one of the most respected books out there on demographics in Palestine. Perhaps you know of some scholarship, or you have done independent research you've done, that calls his work and reputation into.

I'd be very interested for you to share it with us if you did.

Thanks.

J:

Do you mind if I ask what your background is? You seem to hang out here and post quite a bit.

It's odd.

President Carter is one of most decent and honorable man to ever hold the presidency. He is respected wordwide and has won the Nobel Peace prize. He truly embodies what is great about this country. If Carter was in office today, we would not be stuck in Iraq, with nearly 3,000 Americans dead and 18,000 wounded.

Carter has pointed out the truth in his new book that Israel has created an Apartheid system in the occupied territory and has been brutalizing a captive Palestinian population. Carter also said the Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians are debated all over the world except in the US. Why?

Most people know the answer but are afraid to speak out for fear of being labeled an anti-semite. The fact is that Jewish Americans who constitute less than two percent (actually 1.7%) of the population own or control most major newspapers (NY Times, Wall Street Journal, US News, NY Post, Washington Post, Boston Globe and many others), TV networks and other media assets. To say that Jewish Americans either own or control the US media is not anti-semitic but just an observation of fact. Because of their total control of our media, the mis-treatment of the Palestinians are not broadcast. Journalists are afraid that their career will suffer if they air the Palestinians' suffering. So America continues to hear the Israeli propaganda, sends billions of dollars to Israel every year, which allows Israel to brutalize and occupy Palestinian lands, which gets the Moslems mad, and which causes Bin Laden and other terrorists to attack us.

Israel Lobby pushed America into this disaster in Iraq only for the benefit of Israel. People like Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Ken Adelman, Bill Kristol and other Israeli media surrogates appeared on every evening to brainwash Americans into supporting this war.

Today the same Israeli agents are attacking Jimmy Carter for his new book. Their attack on one of America's greatest man is an outrage.

The only way we can reduce terrorism is to force Israel to withdraw from occupied land, and also to identify these surrogates who are eager to sacrifice American blood and treasure for Israel.

When have Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol fought for America?

How long will America be fooled by pro-Israel propaganda? It is time for Americans to speak up and demand action from their representatives. It is estimated that major political parties get more tha 60% of campaign donations from Jewish groups, which is why they never criticize Israel's occupation. Now Carter's book raises important issues, but the pro-Israel groups cannot tolerate any criticism.

"Ken Stein ... doesn't trust the Palestinians as much as Carter." This qualifies as the understatement of the week (and its only Wednesday!). I'm not sure any American trusts the Palestinians as much as Carter.

"I wonder how they will try to apply this tired tactic to the entire Iraq Study Group, who have essentially come to the exact same conclusion as Mr. Carter" To say that a small part of 3 of 79 recommendations suggested by the ISG means that it has reached the same conclusion and has the same approach as Carter is simply not true. The major thesis of the ISG is NOT that the settlements should be turned over to the Palestinians and the occupation ended. There is more (a lot more) in the ISG as well as UN resolutions 242/338 than just Israel simply giving up the settlements.

You write: "Entitled "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Carter's book has won him praise in the international online media and scathing criticism from U.S.-based Israel supporters."

To be honest, it always amazes me that with the means of communication currently at their disposal, so many Americans be unaware and unconcerned that their views be so remote from what the international community knows to be true. But how could it be otherwise, given that, as you point out here, "a passionate defense of Palestinian aspirations (is) rarely heard in the U.S. media and unprecedented from someone who once occupied the Oval Office"?

Surely, it would seem appropriate, nonetheless, before embarking on the usual rhetoric, insults and well-worn unfounded statements, to take a close look at the valuable documentation the United Nations have produced for more than half a century, on this subject, as well as to inquire what the views of prominent human models like Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela are based on.

Personally, if I may be allowed to add my voice to theirs, I share the views of UN high commissioner for human rights former Canada's Supreme Court Chief Justice Louise Arbour, recently stoned by an Israeli mob, in Sderot, Israel, after daring to state: "Israel has responsibility for its citizens by legal means, in respect of international law, including international humanitarian law... It has to look for support and partnership to build an atmosphere where peace would be sustainable. I think other measures are very short term." (Mehdi Lebouachera Tue Nov 21, news.yahoo.com) It is my view that the above statement by Ms Arbour needs be repeated, time and again, until it be heard, fully understood, and finally complied with.

William
"America continues to hear the Israeli propaganda, sends billions of dollars to Israel every year, which allows Israel to brutalize and occupy Palestinian lands, which gets the Moslems mad, and which causes Bin Laden and other terrorists to attack us." al-Qaeda was not formed because of the Israeli-Paletinian problem. It was formed because Saudi Arabia allowed the US to have and use a base during the first Gulf War on what Bin Ladin and others consider holy land.

"Because of their total control of our media, the mis-treatment of the Palestinians are not broadcast. Journalists are afraid that their career will suffer if they air the Palestinians' suffering." Please point out any example of this actually happening. Perhaps, the Palestinians don't get as much air time as you might like because they are just one of many groups in the world suffering.

Robert Rose
While Chief Justice Louise Arbour's car was stoned in Sderot, Israel, it was not for what she said. Those words came after in discussions with reporters in Sderot. By her own words (on CBC Radio), she had gone in her group in a UN vehicle to the site of a Palestinian rocket attack, talked to a few people but then was forced to leave for fear that there might be a gas explosion, and as they were leaving, the UN car was pelted with a few rocks. There is quite a difference in a woman getting stoned for something she said vs. a UN vehicle getting stoned by people at an extreamly emotional time who might feel the UN might not be looking out for their best interest.

I do not know whether "journalists who wish to air the Palestinians' suffering fear for their career." What I do know is that they do fear for their lives. Examples come from Reporters without Borders (RWB) -- in parts my translation from the French:

"RWB calls for military police investigation into death of British documentary filmmaker.

Country/Topic: Israël/Palestine
Date: 18 June 2003
Source: Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Person(s): James Miller
Target(s): journalist(s)
Type(s) of violation(s): killed
Urgency: Bulletin

James Miller, killed May 2, 2003, in Rafah (south of the Gaza strip) (RSF/IFEX)--

Miller, 34, married and father of two, was killed on may 2, after 16 days spent in the Gaza strip. He was working on a documentary for the Home Box Office, concerning the impact of the conflict on Palestinian children and other refugees in the camp of Rafah.

He is the second journalist killed by Israeli fire since the beginning of 2003 and the fifth since the beginning of the second Intifada, in September 2000.

Miller's team members and two Palestinian assistants have stated witnessing Miller being shot by an Israeli soldier. Two video recordings support their assertions... deadly fire came from a soldier positioned on an Israeli tank... while houses were being demolished... Journalists waved a white flag and wore bulletproof jackets on which one could read "PRESS", so as to be seen by Israeli troops... On May 8, an autopsy at the Israeli National Medico-Legal Institute established that it was an Israeli type bullet that had killed the journalist, as he was facing the soldier." (www.ifex.org/alerts)

David,

You asked;

"J:

Do you mind if I ask what your background is? You seem to hang out here and post quite a bit.

It's odd."

Sure, David.

Starting with my name, address, and S.S. #,
followed by my resume and a personal life histo..... Wait.

Your "odd" for asking such a stupid question in some sophmoric attempt to marginalize a voice that is able to back up a political world view that you object to with real facts, as opposed to inuendo, subterfuge and baseless character assasination.

Consider me an "interested party", a description that should apply to all Americans.

You might also delve back into the past posts here to find out more about me, where you will also discover that there are numerous people who have posted regularly here for years, and of course many people who post regulary, but constantly change their monikers. You will also see others, much like yourself, who have used exactly the same ridiculus tactic that you just employed to try to discourage further postings or marginalize opposing voices by insinuating that posting here "Too Much" is somehow less than honorable or "odd".

But wait.. you must have already done that, unless your really just as "odd" as I am, but too cowardly to continue to use the same moniker...

Nice try.

J

Jimmy Carter tells the truth about Palestine in "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." In fact, in Gaza Israel is practicing a slow form of genocide where the people are sealed off from the world and encounter non-stop military attacks. But Carter skirts the Israeli issue.

Sure, the Arab Israelis can vote but they do not have full rights as citizens - or human rights for that matter. In January, for example, Shimon Peres requested the ethnic cleansing of over 40,000 Arab Israelis, the Knesset voted and shortly thereafter the bulldozers arrived. The purpose - to clear out the people to put up luxury condos for Jews-only.

And this summer before the war on Lebanon, Jews were fighting Jews in riots. The White Ashkenazi Jews didn't want the Middle Eastern Jews driving on their streets or walking on their sidewalks. Why? Because they are supposedly religiously inferior!

If you want the facts - read the Israeli papers as I do. Israel is an extremely racist country as anyone who lives there, or has spent time there knows. Whether or not they admit it is another story.

G C Fraser

You have got to love these quotes:

Dershowitz...

"It's obvious that Mr. Carter just doesn't like Israel or Israelis."

and

Writing in the New Republic magazine, former publisher Marty Peretz declared Carter "will go down in history ...as a Jew hater."

This is mindset ...

We are above criticism ..everything we do is wonderful and if you dare criticise us YOU are at fault.

Keep up the good work Mr Carter...the world needs more people like you and less of the lowlifes who act as apologists for the murderous state of israel.

Straw poll - who do most of you think dershowitz would support in a U.S. v israel conflict?

J:

"Your "odd" for asking such a stupid question in some sophmoric attempt to marginalize a voice that is able to back up a political world view that you object to with real facts, as opposed to inuendo, subterfuge and baseless character assasination."

J...why so nasty? What's so odd and stupid about being curious as to whom you're speaking with? I simply asked to find out more about you because you post so much and I thought it was strange that you had all that time, unless you were Jefferson Morley himself, which is who I thought you might be.

If you asked more about me, I'd tell you. I try to treat people on these boards the same that I would if I was speaking to them in person. It's much more intellectually engaging that way, and makes for more honest debate. Everyone knows who Jefferson is. Why should we hide when he can't?

I was just attempting to get a feel for who you are and what your qualifications are. Sorry I angered you so and if I came across as insulting, I apologize sincerely.

As far as saying I'm attempting to marginalize you, etc., I'm not sure what you mean. I don't mean to marginalize anyone. I simply posted some information about the man who founded the center with Carter and asked you to post links that back up your claim that he is part of a Lobby. I then asked you to post some information discrediting his status as a leading scholar and challenging his book, which is one of the leading works on Palestine's history.

Have you read the work? Did you check out the link I provided that praised its balance and insight? Do you have recordings of his meetings that he claims Carter lied about, so you can give another perspective that Carter has not given in response to Stein's accusations? There is now talk of a lawsuit for plagiarism against Carter. Do you have any information about it?

I'm asking sincerely so that you can bring something to the table and we can learn from each other.

What do ya got for me?

David,

I am Yasser Arafat.... no scratch that, he's dead.

I'm Bill Clinton...,

no I'm a salt of the earth factory worker from Michigan just sharin my views, man....

No! I'm Golda Mier!! damn... dead too.

no, hang on I'm.....

The point is David, that you or anyone else would be nuts to reveal personal information on an open internet forum such as this. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way of verifying the veracity of any "background" that you or I might offer. It's pointless.

Rather, this is a forum of facts, opinion and Ideas. Let them speak for themselves, and weigh them based on their merits alone, so that preconceptions and prejudices do not color your understanding of the facts (or lack thereof) presented.

If it makes you feel better about my posts, pick one of the personalites listed above and pretend that I am them. Although I can tell you that I am not Jefferson.

regarding your question,

I have not read the work of the man who critized Carter, which from your description, sounds only vaugely related to the moral and strategic bankruptcy of the settlements. But I would bet that James Baker has not read his work either, and he agrees with Carter. Do you feel that his credibility is somehow stained as a result? Baker urged Bush I to cut off all funding to Israel until the settlement movement was ended and the occupation withdrawn. Bush I tried, but caved to AIPAC pressure. Very unfortunate, as this might have prevented the much of the terrorist recruiting and funding that led to 9/11.

Keep in mind that the settlements have been condemned by the Israeli people themselves, who voted in the Kadima Party for the express purpose of removing most of the settlements and ending the occupation, which they recognize as a pointless wieght around the neck of the Nation, and, in the minds of many Israelis, just morally wrong.

If you read Israeli sources, you will understand this clearly. They have much more vehement and detailed discussions about all of this than anything that occurs in most American news sources, some of which makes Carters book look tame in comparison.

J

The basic flaw with the Israel/Palestine dispute as the "root cause" of all misery, as advanced by Carter, is that it is so easily and demonstrably disproved.

Remove Israel. Close it down Take the 6 million Israeli Jews and move them to Antarctica or the Moon.

What do you get?
After 3 months of dancing in the streets, you still have 22 kleptocratic backward dictatorships, 22 failed states with a collective GDP less than Spain's, an entire region and people who don't produce a world class toothpick, an economic system based upon 12th century feudalism, subjugated women, a violent religious model, poverty, disease and backwardness.

If the Jews had ended up with the present rump West Bank and Gaza in 1948 or even 1967, they'd have turned it into Hong Kong.

The issue is not the Israelis

As soon as people began interjecting comments such as "Jew haters" and anti-semitic, the poignant and intelligent side of this debate took a nasty turn. Maybe it's time to examine our words and temper our speech to be taken seriously, as those just slinging around insults and not backing up their arguments just come off sounding stupid in the end. Also I noticed some discrimination against "hillbillies" and what they would believe on the topic. Get real! You lambast people for their prejudice and then go ahead and do it yourself against other groups.

I do find it interesting (to get to the point) that despite what the author of the article says, there seems to be much debate on the topic of Palestinian-Arab conflict in this country, however it is probably not brought to air often enough because of the type of behavior we've seen in this blog to try to squelch it with hateful rhetoric and un-intelligent nonsense.

The palestinians are mere pawns in the arab and muslim world to cover for every failure of their countries to advance into the modern civilized world. Much easier to blame Israel and focus your population'S anger there than to address the failure of those countries. I always am repulsed by those who attack a democracy and make excuses for bloody dictatorships.

STEVE, yours was the best post on this whole blog. Congratulations!

Personally, I think in America there is too much MISINFORMATION in the media (ie cultural and historical misunderstandings) as well as DISINFORMATION in the media (ie deliberate misleading and biased information). These two combine to create the mess we see in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

J:

Answer the question! Are you Jefferson Morley? Speak up.

"Remove Israel. Close it down Take the 6 million Israeli Jews and move them to Antarctica or the Moon. What do you get?"--

You get the US without its right arm (its proxy) to bully, to threaten, to strike militarily and to impose its rule in the Middle-East. Same if you remove US supported dictators all over South and Latin America. Same... (enough said).

Seems to me the issues, part of the most pressing geopolitical problems, are indeed very much the US proxies throughout the world.

What the world needs, what the international community needs, what WE need, is peaceful coexistence based on justice for all. More than that, we need international respect and cooperation amongst nations. So that every nation develops fully, instead of being strangled for ideological reasons as was and still is Cuba, for instance, the intent being to set examples that nothing can work except under US rule.

To label those major human needs as "naive", "idealistic", "stupid", "idiotic" and the like, will never make them disappear. On the contrary, day after day, their denial only makes them all the more acute and in urgent need of being met... unless ones prefers, of course, hegemony, perpetual conflict and war, worlwide, all by no means inevitable but the results of our collective choices.

Unfortunately, it is no irony to say that hegemony, perpetual conflict and war are the only ways too many of us seem to know, when it comes to adding some zest to their miserable lives. Suffice to observe all this constant, sickly, glorification of violence on the Web, including amongst bloggers, almost on any issue.

The UN voted that tyhe final land determination would come
only after an Israel,Palestinian agreement on the topic. Israel therefore is in compliance with International Law

Finally a person acknowledges that there are two sides to this issue. Its a shame no politician can write or say the same things without being called anti-semitic. Can we not even question Israel about anything.

J,

You said:

"I do find it interesting (to get to the point) that despite what the author of the article says, there seems to be much debate on the topic of Palestinian-Arab conflict in this country, however it is probably not brought to air often enough because of the type of behavior we've seen in this blog to try to squelch it with hateful rhetoric and un-intelligent nonsense."

I also happen to use the same Moniker (J),

But well said.

Steve,

You said:

"The basic flaw with the Israel/Palestine dispute as the "root cause" of all misery, as advanced by Carter, is that it is so easily and demonstrably disproved."

Mr. Carter, nor any other reasonable person that I can think of, has suggested that Israels existance is the root cause of all of all misery, or all or even most of the problems in the Middle East. In fact at no time in Mr. Carters writings has he called into question Israels "existance" on any level. If you had actually read this or any of his other books, you would know that.

Its very easy to set up a "Straw Man" arguement that you can easily then knock down, while ascribing your faulty logic and misrepresentations to Mr. Carter or others who seek the end of the settlements and occupation.

Why not join the actual discussion and debate the degree to which the settlements and occupation have inspired very avoidable terror agasint Israel and eventually the US? If you don't think that they are a complete liability, then you disagree with not only Mr. Carter, but a majority of Israelis and in fact and majority of the World, much less Tony Blair, The ISG, Walt and Mearsheimer, Bill Clinton and many, many others.

In fact it is the opinion of the Kadima Party in Israel that the occupation and at least in large part the settlements should go. Thats why they removed all settlements in the Gaza, and thats why they are still to this day coming to grips with the reality that most, if not all, of the settlements in the WB and EJ are going to have to go. Olmert insinuated only a week ago that he might be willing to move in that direction in a bid for peace.

This is precisely what Mr. Carter is asserting and for precisely the same reasons.

J

The use of the analogy of 'apartheid' does have a resonance in Israel.

The apartheid system in South Africa was not only about racism but also encompassed the land issue. Blacks were segregated to live in 'Bantustans' or homelands. These homelands were disjointed pieces of territory with borders separating them from the rest of 'white' South Africa. The most infamous of these was the 'independent state' of Bophuthatswana. In effect whites were acquiring land for themselves. This policy also contributed to some black South Africans who were allowed to live in 'white' South Africa in segregated towns while other black South Africans were required to live in these 'independent states' in which they had to apply for citizenship.

The usage of apartheid by Carter to imply land segregation and acquisition as practiced in South Africa's applies to the current policies in the West Bank.

J, you said:

"You or anyone else would be nuts to reveal personal information on an open internet forum such as this."

Not really. If you were a MESA fellow, or an assitant professor in Columbia's MES department, you could easily leave a link to your blog or stuff you've written, and the knowledge that you share on here would reflect your experience so that we could at least trust you were a reliable, distinguished source of information could teach us something.

"Rather, this is a forum of facts, opinion and Ideas. Let them speak for themselves, and weigh them based on their merits alone, so that preconceptions and prejudices do not color your understanding of the facts (or lack thereof) presented."

Good advice all around.

"If it makes you feel better about my posts, pick one of the personalites listed above and pretend that I am them."

Not necessary. I don't really have much feeling about your posts one way or the other. I'm just trying to have a civilized debate with you.

"I have not read the work of the man who critized Carter."

Ok. So I fail to see how you can dismiss him outright.

"I would bet that James Baker has not read his work...Do you feel that his credibility is somehow stained as a result?"

J...I'm not sure what your point is, here. I posted a link to a news source about Kenneth Stein, with a letter he wrote to Carter. You immediately said he had no credibility because he's merely part of a Lobby. James Baker has nothing to do with it.

Your quote is as follows:

"To suggest that this is some real blow to Carters credibility rather than part of a concerted attack by the Israel Lobby, is ridiculus."

Now, you also said (to reiterate):

"this is a forum of facts, opinion and Ideas. Let them speak for themselves, and weigh them based on their merits alone"

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm weighing your opinions based on their merits or lack thereof. That's what this comment section is for. And so far, all you've done is shoveled contempt and hostility my way, rather than address my points.

My question about your familiarity with Stein's work and the books he has written is perfectly logical, given your attack on him. I thought, that based on what you said, you knew about his work and his reputation.

Here is some information about Stein from various news sources and his web page:

"In 1985, he wrote a book with Mr. Carter, "The Blood of Abraham: Insights in the Middle East," which was published by Houghton-Mifflin...Mr. Stein was executive director of the Carter Center from 1983 to 1986 and had continued to serve as a Middle East fellow until Tuesday.

Mr. Stein said the former president had come to speak to his class as recently as last month...

At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, Dr. Kenneth W. Stein is the William E. Schatten Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science and Israeli Studies. He is the author of four books, almost a dozen book chapters, encyclopedia entries, dozens of scholarly articles, and literally hundreds of newspaper contributions.

Among his publications are Hebrew and English editions of Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace (Routledge:1999); Making Peace Among Arabs and Israelis: Lessons from Fifty Years of Negotiating Experience, United States Institute for Peace:1991), and The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939, (North Carolina Press: 1984, 1985, and 2003). His most recent journal articles include "Israel's Disengagement from the Gaza Strip: Precedents, Motivations, and Outcomes, " La Communita Internationale (Rome), Vol 4/2005 and "Lieber klein aber dafur jüdisch, Der Abzug der Israelis aus Gaza ist ganz im Sinne des Zionismus" (Better Small Yet Jewish, Israel's Withdrawal from Gaza is in Keeping with Zionism), International Politik (Berlin), November 2005.

From 1996 through 1999, he wrote the chapter on the "Arab-Israeli Peace Process" in Middle East Contemporary Survey (Westview Press), and entries for Microsoft's Encarta Encyclopedia on the "PLO," "1948 Israeli Independence War," "June 1967 War," "1973 October
War," "Hamas," and "Intifadah."
Since coming to Emory in 1977, he founded and developed the International Studies Center, was the first director of the Carter Center (1983-1986), established the Middle East Research Program (1992) and the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel (1997)."

You have offered nothing here to support your contention that Stein's opinion is irrelevant and should be dismissed.

"James Baker...he agrees with Carter."

I have scored the news looking for quotes to back your assertion that James Baker agrees with Carter.

First of all, I don't know how that's relevant to your attacking Stein's credibility, and second of all, their are no quotes about Baker agreeing with Carter, because he hasn't said anything about it one way or the other.

"Baker urged Bush I to cut off all funding to Israel until the settlement movement was ended and the occupation withdrawn. Bush I tried, but caved to AIPAC pressure."

Here is a list of quotes - from press conferences - with Baker and Bush on record saying they are opposed to the settlements.

"http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/statements_on_american_policy_toward_settlements_by_us_government_officials.html"

And here is a quote from Encyclopedia Americana that says:

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0068080-00

"Bush declined to support $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel unless Israel halted settlements in its occupied territories. When Yitzak Rabin succeeded Yitzak Shamir in 1992, the new Israeli government suspended construction and financing of most new settlements; soon thereafter Bush and Rabin came to an agreement on the loans."

Here is another quote from Jpost article, that says that despite Baker's hard-headed approach, Israelis really shouldn't fear him because he generally supports the Jewish State-

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1162378452559&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull:

"In 1989, Baker also stunned many by telling an AIPAC conference that "now is the time to lay aside once and for all the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel. Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza, security and otherwise, can be accommodated in a settlement based on [UN Security Council] Resolution 242. Forswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; reach out to the Palestinian as neighbors who deserve political rights." Then there was his disparaging remark in Congress in 1990, when he said that when the Israelis were serious about peace, they should call the White House. "The telephone number," he said, "is 1-202-456-1414."

I don't see any information in that article or anywhere else about cutting off all aid to Israel. Nor do I see the portrait of a man who is cowed and prevented from doing so because of AIPAC. I see a person who confronted AIPAC at a speech and a president who made loans conditional on settlement activity being stopped.

Personally, I think many supporters of Israel are misplaced in their fear of Baker, as are many opponents of Israel who see Baker as their savior. I'll never forget when Baker cried on Charlie Rose after Yitzhak Rabin's assassination (that moment is mentioned in the article above). That is hardly the action of a man who is against Israel and hates the Jews.

"Very unfortunate, as this might have prevented the much of the terrorist recruiting and funding that led to 9/11."

Perhaps cutting off all funding might have stopped some recruiting, but that's merely speculative. Anyway, so far you haven't given any evidence that Bush and Baker tried to cut off all funding, so the point is irrelevant.

"If you read Israeli sources, you will understand this clearly."

I do read Israeli sources. Most of the major papers (when I have time), some great blogs. I also have friends and family there. I'm returning in a couple of months.

"They have much more vehement and detailed discussions about all of this than anything that occurs in most American news sources, some of which makes Carters book look tame in comparison."

Well, Israeli news is, um Israeli news. It would make sense that the intensity and frequency of discussion about their own country would be turned up, being that it's, well, their own country.

As far as discussion about Israel in the American press, it gets far more coverage than other nations. Tony Judt recently had an op-ed in support of the Lobby Paper in the NY Times. Mersheimer recently debated Dennis Ross in NYC (it's online, you can see it). Rashid Kalidi is a frequent guest on Charlie Rose. Jimmy Carter recently wrote a piece that was featured in Time Magazine. The New York Times recently featured a report on the Israeli Lobby, with Steven Erlanger quoting from Stephen Walt. Hamas spokesmen have had editorials featured in this paper that Jefferson has cited.

In the American Jewish community, the Forward is a leftist publication that sometimes features Jewish anti-Zionists. Within my own synagogue in NYC, there is rigourous debate about Israeli policy. Jewish writers for Salon tend to be left and/or anti-Zionist.

So, while debate about Israel isn't as intense with Jews in the diaspora as those in Israel, it's much more varied and self crtical than discourse about the conflict in the Palestinian American community and Arab American community.

It's also much more honest and self-critical than anything you've written on here on these message boards.

Robert Rose is one of those enjoying the freedom that the US guarantees yet he sympathizes with police states like Cuba and probably that poor picked on nation North Korea. This is precisely the type of person I mentioned in my previous post. What naive people like Robert forget is that they and probably their families would probably be in jail or executed if they criticized those governments publicly like he does the US in this forum

And J:

Yes, I have posted on this forum before. Under davesax. I posted this time as David simply because I realized that there's nothing to fear in using my real first name as a moniker.

If posting as davesax, though, makes you feel I'm less "cowardly", I'm happy to do so, though I'd rather just stick with my real first name and not hide behind some internet identity.

And J:

Yes, I have posted on this forum before. Under davesax. I posted this time as David simply because I realized that there's nothing to fear in using my real first name as a moniker.

If posting as davesax, though, makes you feel I'm less "cowardly", I'm happy to do so, though I'd rather just stick with my real first name and not hide behind some internet identity.

MorleyWatch,

You said:

"J:

Answer the question! Are you Jefferson Morley? Speak up.".

I think you have to seriously consider the possibility that we all may be Jefferson Morley.......no wait, thats really paranoid and just doesn't make sense.

Get over it. I'm not Jefferson Morley.

I am just an American, who can read, who does not rely solely on fox news for my world views, who is extremely unsatisfied with the handling of post 9/11 US foreign policy, and the events and that have shaped it.

Maybe Jefferson will chime in and explain to you that I am not him, although that might really just be me, J, trying to mess with your head! (but if you go back and read my posts, you'll see I am not about that sort of thing).

Stick to the ideas and and facts, and defend or attack them on their merits, and forget the personalities. That is exactly what these forums are about.

If you just can't live without a charactor to assasinate, though, you can pretend I'm Bill Clinton, Or Golda Mier, or whatever works for you and have at it! But then please get back to the facts and Ideas when your done.

J

Jews comprise 35% of the population of Mandatory Palestine, but have (under the "1967 borders") only 12.5%. Arabs already have one state on 75% of Palestine, and now are to receive half of the remaining 25%. In effect, 65% of the population gets 87.5% of the land, while the 35% Jewish population is segregated onto a "Bantustan" of only 12.5%. That's the real racism and the real apartheid.

Here's some more fun statistics you may like (or may not like, depending on your viewpoints). Of all the non-Turkish land that made up the Ottoman Empire, Arabs made up approximately 95% of the population, while Jews made up approximately 4 % (the remaining 1% was made-up by Kurds and other misc. ethnic groups). Israel, as demarcated by the "1967 borders" is only 1% of the land area of the non-Turkish Ottoman lands. So Arabs made up 95% of people, but got 99% of the land, whereas Jews made up 4% but got only 1% of the land. (And that's only counting the Middle Eastern Jews -- it would be much highter than 4% if one counted the Jews originally indigeneous to the Middle East who were essentially being held hostage in Europe, that is, when they weren't being murdered). The Arabs didn't get cheated. By any objective measure, it was the Jews who got cheated, not the Arabs.

Let me first say that I am a Palestinian American and a pacifist. I believe violence only begets more violence. Needless to say, President Carter is a man of courage for writing this book. Today, if one is critical of Israel or her policy one is labeled anti-Semitic. It is ironic because even Arabs and Arab Americans are labeled anti-Semitic, which is a fallacy since we are also Semitic people.

Israel is an Apartheid state. According to the United States State Department figures of 2005, all Palestinians (including those in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza) outnumber Jewish Israelis. A minority is controlling a majority, and the minority discriminates against the majority. There are roads for Israelis and roads for Palestinian. While twenty percent of the "so called Israel pollution" is Arab, who are given similar rights as Israeli Jews. There are actually laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab/Palestinian citizens. For example, there is a law preventing Arab Israeli's from marrying a Palestinian living in the West Bank and Gaza. Let me clarify my point, if a Palestinian who has Israeli citizenship marries a Palestinian who is from the West Bank, the West Bank spouse cannot move inside 1948 Israel to live with the Arab Israeli citizen spouse. These rules do not prevent an Israeli Jew from marrying whoever he/she wants and moving said spouse to Israel.

Israel is not a true democracy. There are millions of Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza who are not allowed to vote. If one looks at a map of Israel today, one sees land that consists of 1948 Israel and all the territory Israel has subsequently gained through the year. For it to be a democracy, all people in Israel would be allowed to vote.

If there is to be lasting peace, Israelis need to believe in humanity. Both sides need to recognize that the other is not leaving and they need to learn how to co-exist in historical Palestine.

The article about Mr. Stein's critcism of President Carter's new book written in the NY Times by a Jewish author is very critical of Carter. The article about Mr. Stein's criticism of Carter's book written by a non-Jew in the Post is mostly supportive or balanced. Hum, I wonder why.

I'm sure J is not Jefferson Morley.

I have e-mailed and debated Jefferson many times. He is considerate, informed, and even-keeled, and does not get personal when he debates.

I was wrong to even think that J might be Jefferson, as he is none of those things.

Davesax, (David), Golda Mier, Bill Clinton?,

My problem with the Mr. Steins take on Mr carters book is very similar to the problem I have with your approach in this discussion. He limits his attacks to Mr. Carters Personal integrity and scholarly acumen, citing factual Errors, Ommisions, and (of all things) personal differences in opinion and recollections.

Everything but the actual point of the book, which is that the settlements and the occupation are morally wrong, and more importantly inspire needless terrorism against both Israel and now the United States, which he fails to address whatsoever, and which remain utterly unassailable regardless of any of the things that Carter may (or most likely may not) have ommited, mispelled, had the audacity to criticze Israel about ,or otherwise.

Carters views wiht regard to the importance of removeing the settlements and ending the occupation are in fact shared by most Israelis, as evidenced both by the Kadima Party's very charter, the removal of the settlements in Gaza, and Olmerts very recent suggestion that Israel is ready to remove most of the other settlements and the occupation in order to achieve peace.

Tony Blair has said exactly the same thing that Carter has, saying to Congress that there will never be an end to the war on terror until there is a just and fair resolution of the Isreali-Palestinian situation. Now are there any ommisions or mispellings you would like to dispute with Mr. Blair?

Steins tactic (charactor assasination, insinuatations of antisemitism,( in that he suggested that the very title of the book was unrepeatable because he felt it was so offensive) ect) is precisely the same tactic that was used agaisnt Walt and Mearshiemer (the authors of the "Israel Lobby"), by many pro-Settlement Critics; trying to draw attention away from the 800 pound Gorilla in the room by starting an arguement about the carpeting). And in fact, this are exactly the same tactics used on virtually anyone who gets press attention by questioning The US relationship with Israel as it pertains to the settlements and the occupation.

There is rarely, if ever an actual discussion of the merits of the POINT that those who are similary assailed are trying to make. In fact, the entire ritual is aimed at obscuring the issues.

With regard to the ISG, their recommendations include very prominantly the assertion that little else that they recommend will work without serious movement towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This means the removal of the settlements and the end of the occupation. The reason that this is critical is not because the ISG does not care for Jewish people or prefer Palestinians, but rather because they recognize that the situation needlessly fuels ME terrorism, such as the type we experience in Iraq, In Israel, and in the US.

Lets discuss the over arching policy and it merits and flaws, rather than attempting to marginalize others using baseless quibbling about the details to drag the discussion into a sea of equivocation.